Volume 163 — Ohio State Reports, Third Series

Criminal law—Sentencing—Community control—R.C. 2929.15(B)(1)(c)(i)—An offender's violations of substantive community-control rehabilitative requirements aimed at addressing the offender's misconduct are not technical violations of community control—Court of appeals' judgment affirmed.

Sexually-violent-predator specifications—Retroactive application—Application of the current version of R.C. 2971.01(H)(1) to unindicted crimes committed before April 29, 2005, violates Ex Post Facto Clause—Judgment affirmed.

Court of appeals' judgment reversed on the authority of Wilson v. Durrani, and cause remanded.

Domestic relations—R.C. 3109.04—A trial court need consider only the best interest of the child when deciding whether to terminate a shared-parenting plan and which parent to designate as the residential and custodial parent of a minor child.

Workers' compensation—To maintain the privilege of self-insurance, an employer must pay all compensation as required by Ohio's workers' compensation laws—An employer's obligation to reimburse Bureau of Workers' Compensation for relief-fund benefits is separate and distinct from its obligation to pay injured workers their awarded compensation—Relief-fund benefits may not be used to "offset" an incorrect payment of permanent-total-disability compensation—Court of appeals' judgment affirmed.

Criminal law—Speedy trial—Date on which an appellate court orders a case remanded is the appropriate date to start the clock to determine the relevant length of the delay for speedy-trial purposes—A motion to dismiss that alleges a violation of the right to a speedy trial does not reset the speedy-trial clock—The four factors to be considered in determining whether there has been a denial of a defendant's constitutional right to a speedy trial are (1) the length of delay, (2) the reason for the delay, (3) the defendant's assertion of his right to a speedy trial, and (4) the prejudice to the defendant.

Judges—Misconduct—Violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct Conduct—Six-month suspension.

Court of appeals' judgment reversed on the authority of Wilson v. Durrani, and cause remanded.

Mandamus—Public records—Father who requested public records was not acting as his inmate-son's designee—R.C. 149.43(B)(8)—Writ granted in part and denied in part.

Public records law—Ohio Student Privacy Act—R.C. 3319.321(B) prohibits the disclosure of public-school records pertaining to a deceased adult former student without the written consent of the adult former student, with no exception for the former student's death—Court of appeals' judgment denying requested writ of mandamus affirmed.

Attorneys—Misconduct—Violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct—Prof.Cond.R. 3.4(c)'s prohibition against a lawyer's knowing disobedience of an obligation under a tribunal's rules applies to a lawyer's conduct that occurs after a tribunal has issued a final order as well as to a lawyer's conduct that occurs before or during litigation—Permanent disbarment.

Criminal law—R.C. 2923.32—Engaging in a pattern of corrupt activity—The existence of an enterprise is established by showing that the organization is fully operational and engaging in a pattern of illicit activity—The time frame for the commission of a pattern of criminal conduct is sufficient when the evidence shows that the corrupt activity is neither isolated nor so closely connected to be considered a single offense—Court of appeals' judgment reversed in case No. 2019-0651—Court of appeals' judgment reversed in case No. 2019-0654 and cause remanded.

Traffic law—Marked-lanes violation—Statutory scheme merely discourages or prohibits a vehicle from crossing the fog line, not touching it—Judgment reversed.

Attorneys—Misconduct—Multiple violations of the professional-conduct rules, including misappropriating client funds and continuing to practice law while license suspended—Several aggravating factors, including prior disciplinary offenses and causing harm to vulnerable clients—Permanent disbarment.

Probate—Competency of witnesses to a noncompliant will—Ohio's voiding statute applies to both wills executed in compliance with formal requirements and those that fail to adhere to them—Judgment reversed.

Attorneys at law—Resignation with disciplinary action pending—Gov.Bar R. VI(11)(C).

Attorneys at law—Resignation with disciplinary action pending—Gov.Bar R. VI(11)(C).

Attorneys at law—Resignation with disciplinary action pending—Gov.Bar R. VI(11)(C).